Telling me you wont focus on the rest of my reply is one way to disrespect the input I have placed as I have given consideration your input with due response. Whether this was the intended outcome you want or not is no longer a concern to me.

As part of our trail of votes, we already chose this approach over Helios in the DV aspect, to do our best to read and DV only when necessary.

Will you take back that donwvote from Dennnmarc's post given how benign their use of quillbot AI was intended as a means to correct grammar and not be lazy? And they didn't know what they were doing. It seems odd that the downvote still applies like the message has been lumped with the post being the product of those who willfully chose to game the system which it wasn't. I dont have any vested interest whether the downvote on the post stays or not, i am more curious on your perception of whether it is still right to keep it there.

This exchange of ideas was valuable to me as it taught me a lot. I appreciate your time as I am not yet ready to be able to sit during this discussion, as this is beyond my capabilities and the information I handle

I appreciate you being civil with the exchange of ideas. Please consider adding more diversity to the roster of authors you support. I don't mind being obnoxious at this suggestion but if you do expand yout list of authors curated and reduce the number of times some authors receive frequent votes, I think the reward distribution would be spread out and it benefits more people at no loss for the program since 50% of the value always returns back. At the very least, that small change brings more long term improvement despite the short term snag in differences of opinion.